It’s harder to doctor, but that’s not really the big worry with a contract. Contract disputes are usually more along the lines of ‘he didn’t pay me’ or ‘she didn’t deliver the goods.’ It’s much rarer for it to be an ‘I signed a contract that said BLAH, but they forged a contract to say BLAGH and faked my signature on it.’
As for censorship, I’m not sure what you mean. A government would find it difficult to obscure an on-chain contract but that’s also not really an issue. I don’t want to guess what you mean.
You’re thinking on a very narrow definition of a contract, here’s a simple contract example that’s currently being censored and wouldn’t be censorable on Blockchain: Buy NSFW games.
A simple contract could sell you NFTs for game keys that could be redeemed on Steam/Itch/GoG or even the own dev site. So there’s no middleman who could oppose this transaction and say which sort of games can or can’t be sold. This whole thing would be completely automated, secure for every part and non-censorable.
You’re hearing contracts and thinking on paper legal documents, whereas smart contracts usually refer to programs acting on tokens, the code that acts on those tokens is the contract, in the example above the generation and transfer of the tokens would be the contract.
Its the same problem; any regulation is likely to occur at an exchange level. Successful exchanges will eventually buy out the unsuccessful ones.
They require enough capital to run that they are centralized rather than decentralized. They need to be trusted by users. Its very obvious they’re the weak link here.
It’s not though, in the current system everything must go through those shitty companies, so they can dictate anything, and if Steam disobeys they essentially block them from receiving money, and it’s impossible to jump ships because creating a competition is essentially impossible, no one will be able to handle the Volume of Valve’s transactions and it needs to be all done by one entity. Ñ
In the system I’m describing once you’re in the crypto space no one can dictate anything. The same people could try to act as gatekeepers, but it’s almost impossible because anyone with Ethereum can sell them to you, so if an exchange threatens to not buy Ethereum from Valve they can simply go to any other exchange, hell, they themselves could sell Ethereum to users who would then use the Ethereum to buy games returning the Ethereum to Valve to be sold again, and if not anyone with enough capital can start an exchange selling Ethereum to users and buying it from Valve, even with small initial capital you would likely grow very quickly doing this. And the best part is that Valve can sell their Ethereum to different exchanges in any ratio they want to, so it’s essentially impossible for one of them to dictate anything because 1 big exchange can be replaced by 10 smaller ones in a heartbeat without any disruption to the system.
Why less certainty? It’s more certain and less censorable than any other digital payment method.
It’s harder to doctor, but that’s not really the big worry with a contract. Contract disputes are usually more along the lines of ‘he didn’t pay me’ or ‘she didn’t deliver the goods.’ It’s much rarer for it to be an ‘I signed a contract that said BLAH, but they forged a contract to say BLAGH and faked my signature on it.’ As for censorship, I’m not sure what you mean. A government would find it difficult to obscure an on-chain contract but that’s also not really an issue. I don’t want to guess what you mean.
You’re thinking on a very narrow definition of a contract, here’s a simple contract example that’s currently being censored and wouldn’t be censorable on Blockchain: Buy NSFW games.
A simple contract could sell you NFTs for game keys that could be redeemed on Steam/Itch/GoG or even the own dev site. So there’s no middleman who could oppose this transaction and say which sort of games can or can’t be sold. This whole thing would be completely automated, secure for every part and non-censorable.
You’re hearing contracts and thinking on paper legal documents, whereas smart contracts usually refer to programs acting on tokens, the code that acts on those tokens is the contract, in the example above the generation and transfer of the tokens would be the contract.
Exhanges can still ban specific users.
So? Just use another exchange, that’s the same as saying paper money is bad because pawn shops might ban specific users.
Its the same problem; any regulation is likely to occur at an exchange level. Successful exchanges will eventually buy out the unsuccessful ones.
They require enough capital to run that they are centralized rather than decentralized. They need to be trusted by users. Its very obvious they’re the weak link here.
It’s not though, in the current system everything must go through those shitty companies, so they can dictate anything, and if Steam disobeys they essentially block them from receiving money, and it’s impossible to jump ships because creating a competition is essentially impossible, no one will be able to handle the Volume of Valve’s transactions and it needs to be all done by one entity. Ñ
In the system I’m describing once you’re in the crypto space no one can dictate anything. The same people could try to act as gatekeepers, but it’s almost impossible because anyone with Ethereum can sell them to you, so if an exchange threatens to not buy Ethereum from Valve they can simply go to any other exchange, hell, they themselves could sell Ethereum to users who would then use the Ethereum to buy games returning the Ethereum to Valve to be sold again, and if not anyone with enough capital can start an exchange selling Ethereum to users and buying it from Valve, even with small initial capital you would likely grow very quickly doing this. And the best part is that Valve can sell their Ethereum to different exchanges in any ratio they want to, so it’s essentially impossible for one of them to dictate anything because 1 big exchange can be replaced by 10 smaller ones in a heartbeat without any disruption to the system.